W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: New work on fonts at W3C

From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:30:30 -0400
Message-ID: <af2cae770906231030q29233e9ag161777300148406e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, whatwg@whatwg.org
On 23/06/2009, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, and if I don't mind my content (pictures, movies, or fonts I create,
> for instance) being viewable in Google's cached view, then I would indicate
> this in a CORS header (if CORS could work that way). There are many who
> would not want their IP shown in cached view, or who would not want outdated
> information (such as loan rates or legal disclosure) shown in cached view.
> If they are my resources, then I should be able to indicate whether or not
> Google should have the right to republish them. In fact, many
> dynamically-displayed resources are currently blocked from displaying
> anywhere in which the referrer is not the same site or on a list of approved
> sites. A simpler, standardized approach to managing this would benefit many.

This is bizarre. Why is this "republishing"? If your ISP goes down and
I need the info now, I want a cached view. If I get junk from the
cached view, your site just gave me a bad first impression; it does
not damage Google, only your own site.

And how about Google Translate? Babelfish?

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 17:31:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC